This study compares stem cell research policymaking by legislators and citizens in the United States. First, using exit poll results from a 2006 stem cell research initiative in Missouri, the study finds that deeply held personal values such as religious beliefs and views of abortion predominate in an individual’s voting decision on this issue; second, an analysis of voting behavior by senators on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 finds that senators make their voting decisions based on their personal policy preferences rather than their constituents’ preferences; and third, the complexity of the Missouri citizen initiative is compared with that of the legislation in the U.S. Senate, finding that the language of the citizen initiative is more sophisticated than the language of the legislative act. These findings provide the context for a broader discussion of the role of citizens and legislators in making policy for science.

Over the past 25 years, my academic and work experiences have involved and intersected with biopolitics, particularly environmental policy, international relations, and ethics. My academic and teaching experience was in political theory and ethics, and my early research interests turned to emerging recombinant DNA issues, involving the complex interaction of biological science, technology and public policy processes. My scholarly contacts included those with similar concerns, and so I joined with a group of scholars creating the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences. Several years later, my interests brought me to work in a federal agency where public policy decisions often raise important ethical choices, and the political and behavioral aspects of the policy process became more evident. My research centered on issues related to environmental protection. This work was also influenced by my professional friendship with Lynton Caldwell, another APLS founder and a remarkable scholar, whose work on environmental politics was internationally recognized. After the implosion of the Soviet Union, teaching environmental policy for the Agency in Eastern Europe renewed my interest in international relations, which had been my undergraduate focus. The topic of environmental security combined all of these interests. This topic gained substantial attention in policy circles, then declined, but is now being discussed again.

My contribution differs in several aspects from the others in this symposium. To begin, instead of addressing a specific element of future Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) verification operations, I have been asked for my unique “Canadian” perspective on the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspections in which I have participated, and some of the lessons that I have come away with after having been a member of four inspections in 1994 and 1995.

This article reviews biotechnology legislation in the 50 states for 11 policy areas spanning 1990–2010, an era of immense growth in biotechnology, genetic knowledge, and significant policy development. Policies regarding health insurance, life insurance, long-term care insurance, DNA data bank collection, biotech research protection, biotech promotion and support, employment discrimination, genetic counselor licensing, human cloning, and genetic privacy each represent major policy responses arising from biotechnology and coinciding with key areas of state regulation (insurance, criminal justice, economic development, labor law, health and safety, privacy, and property rights). This analysis seeks to answer three questions regarding biotechnology legislation at the state level: who is acting (policy adoption), when is policy adopted (policy timing), and what is policy doing (policy content). Theoretical concerns examine state ideology (conservative or liberal), policy type (economic or moral), and the role of external events (federal law, news events, etc.) on state policy adoption. Findings suggest ideological patterns in adoption, timing, and content of biotech policy. Findings also suggest economic policies tend to be more uniform in content than moral policies, and findings also document a clear link between federal policy development, external events, and state policy response.

Disgust is derived from evolutionary processes to avoid pathogen contamination. Theories of gender differences in pathogen disgust utilize both evolutionary psychological and sociocultural perspectives. Drawing on research that suggests that masculine and feminine gender identities are somewhat orthogonal, we examine how gender identity intersects with pathogen disgust. In addition, building on evolutionary psychological and sociocultural accounts of how caregiving and parental investment affect pathogen disgust, we present a new measure of caregiving disgust and compare its properties across gender, parental status, and political ideology with those of a conventional pathogen disgust measure. This registered report finds that how masculinity and femininity affect disgust varies by gender, disgust domain, and their intersection; that parental status effects vary by disgust domain but not gender; that reframing disgust in terms of caregiving eliminates the gender gap in disgust; and that the caregiving frame unexpectedly strengthens the relationship between disgust and political ideology.

There is currently considerable investment in research aimed at producing transgenic farm animals with enhanced productive capacities. This article submits these prospective technologies to critical ethical evaluation. The analysis provided, focusing on issues relevant to public policy, suggests the need to introduce additional regulations governing the use of these technologies. Should their use be permitted in principle, specific legislation would seem to be required: (1) to protect the welfare of transgenic animals produced/kept in commercial enterprises; (2) to ensure the freedom of choice of purchasers of food and other products derived from transgenic animals by provision of adequate information on the source of the products; and (3) to provide a mechanism for limiting the use of transgenic technologies to those that are in the public interest.